Clinical reliability of zirconium abutment in implant restorations in the English and Korean literature

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Titanium and Zirconia Implant Abutments: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Background: Dental implants are widely used and in order to answer to esthetic demands, zirconia has been introduced as an abutment material as an alternative to titanium. Several studies have been published on this topic, but the results have been often inconsistent. The objective of the present study is to systematically analyze the existing literature comparing clinical outcomes of titanium and zirconia implant abutments. The study was designed as a systematic review of systematic reviews. Methods: This systematic review is in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. A MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS literature search was performed up to and including June 2021. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and tAMSTAR2 was used to assess the quality of the systematic reviews. Results: The electronic search identified 1146 papers, and 175 duplicates were removed. After manual screening, 954 studies were excluded and the final analysis was conducted on 11 papers. Both mechanical and esthetic outcomes and biological complications were analyzed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that titanium abutments have a better mechanical resistance than zirconia ones. Plaque accumulation is reported to be slightly higher on titanium but without any significant inflammatory process. The esthetic outcomes seem to be more related to the thickness (>3 mm) of the soft tissues than to the abutment material.

Classification of the journal category "oral surgery" in the Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded: flaws and suggestions

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the journal category “oral surgery” in Scopus and in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).

Materials and Methods

The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS), The Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (JKAOMS), and The Journal of Prosthodontic Research (JPR) were selected from the Scopus list of journals as oral surgery journals. Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (MPRS) was selected from PubMed as a Scopus oral surgery title. From these titles, 10 recently published articles were collected and used for reference analysis.

Results

The percentage of citations from oral surgery journals was 26.7%, 24.5%, and 40.1% for JKAOMS, MPRS, and JOMS, respectively. In total, 1.1% of JPR's citations were from oral surgery journals and significantly fewer from other journals (P<0.001). The percentage of citations from dentistry journals excluding oral surgery journals was 11.9%, 34.4%, and 15.8% for JKAOMS, MPRS, and JOMS, respectively. For JPR, 80.6% of citations were from dentistry journals and significantly more were from other journals (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Selected samples revealed that JPR is incorrectly classified as an oral surgery journal in Scopus. In addition, the scientific interaction among JKAOMS, MPRS, and JOMS was different to JPR in the reference analysis.